On 3/5/2019 10:03 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Mar 5, 2019, at 08:56, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
I don't think the sentence is meaningful. *-chuq* means the subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object.
But the {-moH} is important here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be the subject of the action being {moH}ed, I think it could be meaningful in the same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.
Here we go again. In mayqel's proposed sentence, *tlhInganpu' *and *romuluSnganpu'* are not the subjects of anything. *qeylIS* is the only subject anywhere. *tlhInganpu'* and *romuluSnganpu'* might be considered as entities that perform *chevchuq,* but the verb isn't *chevchuq,* it's *chevchuqmoH.* The suffix *-chuq* doesn't mean whoever is performing an action performs it on each other; it means whoever is the subject does the verb on each other. In this sentence, the subject is not performing the action; he is causing the action to be performed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name